The URL can be used to link to this page

ZONING AMENDMENT SEC 9 5 2, 9 5 3,9 5 6 - PLANNING Planning Board Report to Council Regarding Zoning Amendment 2 qi,s. cc, LSA Ilan R2ve�� f �. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Report to City Council June 20, 2017 At its meeting on June 15, 2017 the Planning Board met to discuss the proposed amendments to Section 9.5.2 Applicability, Section 9.5.3,Application and Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board members in attendance (Chair Ben Anderson, Vice Chair Matt Veno, Carole Hamilton,Bill Griset,Noah Koretz and Kirt Rieder) made a recommendation by vote on each individual item, as delineated herein. 9.5.2 Applicability: • 9.5.2(2) Residential structure containing one (1) or more residential dwelling units. The Planning Board voted zmanimousl�(6-0) to recommend the PnWosed change be denied o There was consensus among the Board that reducing the threshold to one (1) residential unit would be overreach. The Board discussed whether less than 6 made sense but could not find a compelling reason to vary from the existing threshold. • 9.5.2(3) Salem Redevelopment Authority Development Project Reviews. The Planning Board voted unanimou/ 6-O)to recommend the pn?posed change be denied o "Salem Redevelopment Authority Development Project Reviews" is not defined. In addition, projects within the urban renewal area that meet the threshold for a Site Plan Review are already subject to site plan review. The Salem Redevelopment Authority is capable of reviewing smaller projects that do not meet the threshold for a Site Plan Review. • 9.5.2(4) Planned Unit Developments. The Planning.Board voted unanimouU/ (IL-0)to recommend the�osed change be denied o Planned Unit Developments are already subject to site plan review. 9.5.3 Application • 9.5.3(2) (Location and dimensions of all parking areas...). The Planning Board voted unanimously(6-0)to recommend thepnzposed change be aPPmved. o The Board noted that it makes since to include this in the ordinance since it is information they typically ask the applicant to provide. • 9.5.3(4) (Location, function, photometric intensity...). The Planning Board voted unanimoukly (6-0) to recommend thepmposed change be aPPmved. o The Board noted that it makes since to include this in the ordinance since it is information they typically ask the applicant to provide. • 9.5.3(5) (Location,type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping...). The Planning Board Poled unanimoLLIX (6-0) to recommend the_Propped change be 4pmved as amended herein. - Location, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening including retaining walls and fences; • 9.5.3(6) (Current and proposed locations and dimensions of utilities...). The Planni g Board Poled unanimously(6-0) to recommend the pmPosed change be 4roved as amended herein: - Current and proposed locations, dimensions, and screening of utilities including: water, storm water, sewer, drainage, drain inlets, drainage tanks, back flow preventors, manholes, hydrants, gas, electrical, telephone, wireless communication facilities, HVAC-related mechanicals, transformers, switchgears, generators, intake and exhaust features including: ventilation, stacks, fans, louvers, steam, and recycling and other waste disposal locations; • 9.5.3(7) (Location and dimensions of snow...). The Planning Board voted unanimoLU/ f6-0,) to monmrend the mposed change be y4 coned o The Board noted that it makes since to include this in the ordinance since it is information they typically ask the applicant to provide. • 9.5.3(8) (Location of all existing natural features...). The Planning Board Prated unanimously (6-0) to recommend the dosed change be 4pnoved as amended herein: - Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams, wetlands, street trees, and existing vegetation up to the curb line; • 9.5.3(9) (Topography of the site...). The Planning Board voted(3-1)to recommend Mepmposed change be aroved. o The majority of the Board concurred that many plans are already submitted with one (1) foot contour lines, and that there is not an additional cost to create plans with one (1) foot contours. This was not unanimous. The Chair recommended that this change be denied, for the reason that requiring that level of detail is not necessary for every site plan review, and noted that the board should ask for this further detail on a case by case basis. 9.5.6 Review Criteria • 9.5.3(3) (Adequacy of traffic circulation for all modes of transit, consistent with Salem's Complete Streets policy). The Planning Board Poled unanimonUI (I -0) to recommend the `Con isteni with Salem'.f Con4plete Streets j oli", be stricken and Vrove the change as amended berrin: - Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit. • 9.5.3(8) (Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage, refuse, recycling, and other waste). The Planning.Board voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend the ro osed charge be aa)4mved. • 9.5.3(11) (Adequacy of pedestrian circulation...). The Planning Board voted unanimonf&(6-0) to recommend thebwDofed change be denied Page 2 of 3 r n • 9.5.3(14) (Subsections 2 and 4...). The Planning Board voted unanimousl�(6-0)to recommend the proposed change he denied The Planning Board fully supports the Complete Streets Policy. In making the recommendation to deny the language relating to the Complete Streets Policy (Sec. 9.5.3 (3, 11, and 14), the Board considered what makes sense to include in the zoning ordinance regarding the Complete Streets Policy under Section 9.5 for Site Plan Review. As was stated at the joint public hearing, the Traffic and Parking Commission does not have approval authority. The board recognized that the Traffic and Parking Commission is charged with implementing the City's Complete Streets Policy, which applies to the public rights of way. The purpose of the Complete Streets Policy "is to accommodate all road users by creating a roadway network that meets the needs of individuals utilizing a variety of transportation modes." The Policy "directs decision-makers to consistently plan, design, construct, and maintain streets to accommodate all anticipated users including, but not limited to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, emergency vehicles, and freight and commercial vehicles." Unless the private development proposal is impacting a public right of way, the Complete Streets Policy does not apply. In addition, other specific policies are not called out in the ordinance. Specifying the Complete Streets Policy would create an internal inconsistency. Thus, rather than having the Complete Streets Policy referenced in 9.5, the Board plans to modify the Site Plan Review application to note that impacts to the public right of way would be reviewed by the Director of Traffic and Parking for consistency with the Complete Streets Policy. The Director of Traffic and Parking would be required to provide comment with 35 days and may choose to solicit input from the Traffic and Parking Commission. (Note: The Director of Traffic and Parking was involved in developing this recommendation and concurs with it.) If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Tom Daniel, AICP, Director of Planning& Community Development,at 978-619-5685. Yours truly, Ben Anderson, Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk Page 3 of 3 eU", of Sa&m 9a de Van duo dw6and and Seventeen an Ou4nance to amend an Vuhnance%dative to zaatag to oxdatned ov tie ek emma of de eAv of Safem,ao fdba e: Section i. Section 9.5.2 Applicability, Section 9.5.3—Application and Section 9.5.6— Review Criteria of Salem Zoning Ordinance are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following new sections: 9.5.2 Applicability. Site plan review shall be required for. 1.Nonresidential structure or premises exceeding ten thousand (10,000) gross square feet; or 2. Residential structure containing one (1) or more residential dwelling units. 3. Salem Redevelopment Authority Development Project Reviews 4. Planned Unit Developments 9.5.3 Application. Any application for approval of a site plan review under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of a site plan, which shall be at a scale to be established by the Planning Board and, according to the size of the development, shall include fifteen (15)copies of all information required for a Definitive Plan under Section III B of the Subdivision Regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, as requested. The plan shall contain the following information: 11ocation and dimensions of all buildings and other construction; 21ocation and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas,bicycle racks or bicycle storage areas, walkways and driveways; Plans shall clearly identify pavement grade changes exceeding 5%, and any vegetated slopes steeper than 1 V:3H, identify all pedestrian and vehicular pavement materials 3.1-ocation and dimensions of internal roadways and access ways to adjacent public roadways; 4.1-ocation, function, photometric intensity, color temperature, and fixture type of external lighting; r City 0J Salem SECOND PASSAGE The full text of the amendment is set forth below and may be examined' and obtained in the office of the City Clerk,93 Washington Street,Salem, MA In the year Two thousand and Seventeen Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem,as follows: Section 1.Section 9.5.3.-Application and Section 9.5.6-Review Criteria of Salem Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended as follows: Section 9.5.3 Application is amended by deleting subsections 1-10 in their entirety and replacing with the following: "1.Location and dimensions of all buildings and other construction; 2.Location and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas,bicycle racks or bicycle storage areas,walkways and driveways;Plans shall clearly identify pavement grade changes exceeding 5%,and any vegetated sloped than iV:3J,identify all pedestrian and vehicular pavement materials; 3. Location and dimensions of internal roadways and access ways to adjacent public roadways; 4.Location,function,photometric intensity,color temperature,and fixture type of external lighting; 5.Location,type,dimensions and quantifies of landscaping and screen- ing including retaining walls and fences: 6.Current and proposed locations,dimensions,and screening of utilities Including:water,storm water,sewer,drainage,drain inlets,drainage tanks, back Flow preventers,manholes,hydrants,gas,electrical,telephone,wire- less communication facilities, HVAC-related mechanicals, transformers, switchgears,generators,intake and exhaust features including:ventilation, stacks,fans,louvers,steam,and recycling and other waste disposal loca- tions; 7.Location and dimensions of snow storage areas; 8. Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams wetlands,street trees,and existing vegetation Up to the curb line; 9.Topography of the site,with one foot contours; 10.Conceptual drawing of buildings to be erected,including elevations, showing architectural styles." Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria is amended by: Deleting sub-section 3 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "3.Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit;"Delet- ing sub-section 8 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "8.Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage,refuse,recycling and other waste;" Section 2.This ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. In City Council April 13,2017 Referred to the Planning Board to schedule a joint public hearing with the City Council. Joint public hearing held on June 12,2017 and advertised in the Salem News on May 29,2017 and June 5,2017 Referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation In City Council June 22,2017 Adopted as amended for first passage by unanimous roll call vote of 11 yeas,0 nays,0 absent A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail as denied In City Council Jul 20,2017 Adopted for second and final passage by roll call vote of 11 yeas, 0 nays,0 absent Approved by the Mayor on July 24,2017 Any claims of invalidity by reason of any defect in the procedure of adop- tion may only be made within ninety days after the posting of the second publication. ATTEST:ADV:8-3-17 CHERYL A.LAPOINTE CITY CLERK Poorly service 'A :r„ dirty trains, coupled with breakdowns and late-func- tioning schedules, discour- age consistent use by those needing reliable,reasonable and efficient public trans- portation. Thank goodness i for the pleasant conductors and engineers who do the best they can under adverse conditions. This Wi-Fi project along with the recently announced, a, put-in-operation train cur- tailments north of Beverly for extended periods during the summer, only exemplify EJ.;J CASHIER MBTA officials are insensi- o'' live to residents, visitors, 1 tt111015 RE0IMEAT tourists,and local businesses that rely on the Newburyport , "rd July. .O'. and Rockport service lines. Ito:Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Contrary to some state- rmy during the American ments, in certain locations these 74-foot monopoles are clearly visible; and it r was a appears some tree lines been cent to the poles have been cut down or trimmed back, thereby making them stand d as men out even more. Who autho- rized tree removals,andd had had these been openly discussed before doing so? Though we think of our Let's face it, we get Third odern moment as a time World services and only hen identity is at its most promises. pen,there have been times JOSEPH N.MUZIO AND n American'history when, LOIS G.MUZIO espite the strictures of Rockport he day,we showed that we ould embrace the variety of A thank you uman experience. Here's how one newspaper and an reporter described Albert Cashier's service not long ` 1 1 after his past was revealed: tatlon "During the war Cashier's In`jl ^omrades noted that the 7 Classifleds PUBLIC NOTICES =M- 42M, . .TM.,—m�.vo.waaa.aw.tl 2 d ��d vewvnepgavneeago iJM�rvE NGb��c�wntewP Iwy�Oya�aimtaia a_ mel m Mvmw�y� waa ��.g.v��vuam��}aW�m�Jueam �'MSm.n'MI4�M ne�'Oa4 M� am�a=="97w97 �s voce aaa�mce�ayssys�is ne+,ie+mne�mnmemV.ra w �oom��e u®Ind�wvwm°u n�w°�em ll�lewe✓he�we��.te,wp�P�e'e.iawpn'p.i n m,5n�av�`�eMpua�xtie�� w 9�n9vwa�uw ieaoWW�w ivwN bWi.. owatr...wow, rJuwa,¢�x'�• il>a� --v0�iMm,n, sy,08/03/2017 Pag.18 Copyright(c)2017 The Salem News,Edition 8/3/2017 1/1 51ocation, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening; This shall include: retaining walls, fences,utilities such as drain inlets, manholes, drainage tanks, back flow preventers 6.Current and proposed locations and dimensions of utilities, wireless communication facilities, hydrants, security cameras, signage, gas, telephone, electrical, communications, water, drainage, sewer, HVAC-related mechanicals, transformers, switchgears, generators, storm water, intake and exhaust features including: ventilation, stacks, fans, louvers, steam, and recycling and other waste disposal locations; 71ocation and dimensions of snow storage areas; B.Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams wetlands, street trees, and existing vegetation within 25' of the project boundary 9.Topography of the site, with one foot contours; 10.Conceptual drawing of buildings to be erected, including elevations, showing architectural styles. 9.5.6 Review Criteria. The Planning Board shall review such submitted information in accordance with accepted site planning standards and attempt to promote such standards and make certain that the development, if approved, takes place in a manner which shall in all aspects be an asset to the City. The Planning Board shall request changes in such plans and information submitted to promote the quality of the development and its impact upon the health, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The Planning Board shall review and amend all such submitted plans in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Adequacy of parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each development; 2. Adequacy of loading facilities; 3. Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit, consistent with Salem's Complete Streets policy; 4. Adequacy of access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining streets and ways; 5. Adequacy of type and amount of external lighting to be provided on the parcel; 6. Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of landscaping to promote an aesthetically pleasing environment and to properly screen the development from adjacent land uses; 7. Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of vegetative screening to protect adjacent and nearby land parcels from structures not aesthetically pleasing or wholly compatible with such parcels; 8. Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage, refuse, recycling, and other waste; 9. Adequacy of the method of surface drainage across and from the site; 10. Adequacy of the method of water distribution to and from the parcel and its structures; 11. Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and structures consistent with the City of Salem's Complete Streets policy; 12. Adequacy of protection or enhancement of natural areas; 13. Compatibility of the architecture of structures with architecture of surrounding or nearby buildings. 14. Subsections 3 and 4 set forth above shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salem Parking and Traffic Commission Semon 2.This ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. In City Council April 13, 2017 Referred to the Planning Board to schedule a joint public hearing with the City Council. ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE CITY CLERK ELIZABETH M.RENNARD VICTORIAB.CALDWELL CCIYSOUGTOR AfSLtTANf'CITYSOLIQTOA 93 WASHINGTON STREET .:J•9•' �..+ 93 WASHINGTON SrRBEr SALF\I,MA 01970B�YMIiaq➢ -` SALEM,MA 01970 TEL:978.619.5633 T •978.619.5634 FAx 978.744.1279 CITY OF SALEM FAr. 978.744.1279 EMAIL:BRFNNARD@SALEM.COM KIMBERT FYL.DRISCOLT,MAYOR EMAiL vCAM%XMU.uSA EM.COM LEGAL DEPARTMENT 93\VASMNGTON STR= SALEM,MASSAC14USE'1T'S 01970 To: Councilor Heather Famico From: City Solicitor ElizaR nard Date: June 21,2017 Re: Opinion—Zoning Amendment Proposal/Planning Dir./Complete Streets Issue: May the Director of Planning supply new information to the Planning Board following the close of a j oint public hearing with the City Council. Opinion: The Planning Director,pursuant to City Ordinance Chapter 30-95,is charged with providing technical support to the Planning Board.In this role,the Director must assist the Board in reaching decisions on a variety of matters,including proposed zoning ordinance amendments. In the case of proposed zoning ordinance amendments,it is appropriate that this technical support be provided following the Director's review of the proposed amendment and after considering any input from the public gathered at a public hearing on a proposal. The Director is not a member of the general public who must be given an opportunity to be heard on a proposed zoning amendment,his role is one of technical support for the Board. It is essential for the Board to have this professional,technical support in order to comply with Mass. Gen. Law c.40A s. 5 which requires a Board recommendation based upon information and enlightenment elicited at public hearing and upon study and reflection to ascertain wisest course for the city to pursue. See Whittemore v. Town Clerk of Falmouth(Mass. 1937). I have spoken to the Planning Director and reviewed his memorandum to the Planning Board relative to the proposed zoning amendments which were the subject of the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board on June 12,2017. The technical advice provided is limited to the provisions of the proposed zoning amendments and I found nothing outside of the four corners of that proposal which cause concern or which would necessitate another public hearing. Issue: Does the City of Salem's Complete Streets policy apply to private developments,and if so, can the policy be included in zoning Ordinance. Opinion: The Complete Streets Policy provides that"Complete Streets design recommendations shall be incorporated into all publicly and privately funded projects,as appropriate" and that "private developments and related roadway design components shall adhere to the Complete Streets principles..." The policy also provides, though,that"the Salem Department of Planning&Community Development, in coordination with the Complete Streets Working Group, shall integrate Complete Streets principles in all new planning documents,as applicable (master plans,open space and recreation plan,etc.),laws,procedures,rules,regulations, guidelines,programs,and templates and make recommendations for zoning and subdivision codes in line with their existing update timeline." The issues presented with the current proposed zoning amendment incorporating the Complete Streets Policy into the site plan review requirements are 1)the proposal was not the result of a Planning Department and Complete Streets Working Group recommendation and 2)the proposal provides that the Traffic and Parking Commission must review and approve planned traffic circulation,access points and routes for projects subject to site plan review when no such authority is found in the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Traffic and Parking Commission,Article IV,Division 12, Section 2-988 of the Code of Ordinances. The Planning Director has opined, and I agree,that rather than having the Complete Streets Policy referenced in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.5 Site Plan Review,the recommended action is to modify the Site Plan Review application to note that impacts to the public right of way shall be reviewed by the Director of Traffic and Parking for consistency with the Complete Streets Policy.The Director of Traffic and Parking could be asked to provide comment within 35 days and may choose to solicit input from the Traffic and Parking Commission. The above-referenced change could be made while the Department of Planning& Community - Development,in coordination with the Complete Streets Working Group,review the zoning and subdivision regulations and make recommendations for amendments to incorporate the Complete Streets principles. City of Salem Notice Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board Monday, June 12, 2017 6:00 P.M. The City Council will hold a joint public hearing with the Planning Board on Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St., Salem, MA for all persons interested in the proposed amendments to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of deleting Section 9.5.2 Applicability, Section 9.5.3, Application and Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in their entirety and replacing with the following new sections: 9.5.2 Applicability. Site Plan Review shall be required for: 1) Nonresidential structure or premises exceeding (10,000) gross square feet; or 2) Residential structure containing one (1) or more residential dwelling units. 3) Salem Redevelopment Authority Development Project Reviews 4) Planned Unit Developments. 9.5.3 Application. Any application for approval of a site plan review under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of a site plan, which shall be a to scale to be established by the Planning Board and, according to the size of the development, shall include fifteen (15) copies of all information required for a Definitive Plan under Section III B of the Subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, as requested. The plan shall contain the following information: 1. Location and dimensions of all buildings and other construction; 2. Location and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas, bicycle racks, or bicycle storage areas, walkways, and driveways; plans shall clearly identify pavement grade changes exceeding 5% and any vegetated slopes steeper than 1 V:3H, identify all pedestrian and vehicular pavement materials 3. Location and dimensions of internal roadways and access ways to adjacent public roadways; 4. Location, function,photometric intensity, color temperature, and fixture type of external lighting; 5. Location, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening; this shall include: retaining walls, fences, utilities, such as drain inlets,manholes, drainage tanks,back flow preventers 6. Current and proposed locations and dimensions of utilities, wireless communication facilities, hydrants, security cameras, signage, gas, telephone, electrical, communications, water, drainage, sewer, HVAC- related materials, transformers, switchgears, generators, storm water, intake and exhaust features including: ventilation, stacks, fans, louvers, steam, and recycling and other waste disposal locations; 7. Location and dimensions of snow storage areas; 8. Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams, wetlands, street trees, and existing vegetation within 25' of the project boundary 9. Topography of the site, with one foot contours; 10. Conceptual drawing of the buildings to be erected, including elevations, showing architectural styles. 9.5.6 Review Criteria. The Planning Board shall review such submitted information in accordance with the accepted site planning standards and attempt to promote such standards and make certain that the development, if approved, takes place in a manner which shall in all aspects be an asset to the City. The Planning Board shall request changes in such plans and information be submitted to promote the quality of the development and its impacts upon health, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The Planning Board shall review and amend all such submitted plans in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Adequacy of the parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each development; 2. Adequacy of loading facilities; 3. Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit, consistent with Salem's Complete Street policy; 4. Adequacy of access point and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining streets and ways; 5. Adequacy of type and amount of external lighting to be providing on the parcel; 6. Adequacy of type, quality, and quantity of landscaping to promote an aesthetically pleasing environment and to properly screen the development form adjacent land uses; 7. Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of vegetative screening to protect adjacent and nearby land parcels from structures not aesthetically pleasing or wholly compatible with such parcels; 8. Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage, refuse, recycling, and other waste; 9. Adequacy of the method of surface drainage across and from the site; 10. Adequacy of the method of water distribution to and from the parcel and its structures; 11. Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and structures consistent with the City of Salem's Complete Streets policy; 12. Compatibility of the architecture of structures with architecture of surrounding or nearby buildings 13. Subsections 3 and 4 set forth above shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Salem Parking and Traffic Commission. The proposed zoning map amendments are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the City Clerks Office, Room 1, 93 Washington Street, Salem MA or at the Department of Planning & Community Development, 3' floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Attest: Cheryl A. LaPointe City Clerk Ben J. Anderson, Chair Planning Board Ad to run on: May 29, 2017 and June 5, 2017 RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON 1 ATTORNEYSATLAW SIXTY FIVE CONGRESS STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470 JACOB S.SEGAL MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON GEORGE W.ATKINS III TEL(978)744-MW FAX(978)744-7493 Salem City Council Members Salem Planning Board Members As members of the Council and Planning Board are aware I have practiced land use law as an attorney for many years and have reviewed and acted upon zoning ordinance provisions during my service on the City Council. In the majority of my practice I represent individual land owners of residential and/or commercial properties in regard to minor projects which involve individual parcels of land or individual buildings being rehabilitated or changed in use. I oppose the proposed amendment of the Site Plan Review ordinance to include one to four family residential dwellings and submit for your consideration the following points: 1 1. Minor projects are subject to very limited budgets and financing requirements. I can assure you that the plans and professional fee requirements for the site review process are expensive and can result in a determination by land owners not to proceed with projects which would be beneficial improvements to neighborhoods of one to four family dwellings. Often these minor projects are proposed not by "developers" but by neighborhood residents. 2. As an active member of the Salem Partnership, I have listened to presentations from economists, planners and state officials, all of whom state that the availability of housing is a key ingredient to the economic vitality of a community. A recent study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council for Salem (available in the Planning Department), emphasized the need for more housing availability in the City. The ordinance proposal before you will chill this important ingredient of the economic stability of the City. 3. The City Solicitor, the Building Inspector's office, the Planning Department staff, and the voluntary citizen boards —the Board of Appeals, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Redevelopment Authority, Design Review Board and Historical Commission — all do thorough and extensive professional reviews of all projects including one to four family residential projects to insure compliance with all municipal and state regulations. An additional expensive level of regulation has a negative impact upon Salem homeowners and also sends a wider message that the City is a difficult place to obtain permits for residential housing. George W. Atkins Ilene Simons rrom: Heather Famico <heather.famico@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 12, 2017 3:59 PM To: Ilene Simons Subject: Forjoint meeting Ilene, Could you print this for members of the council and planning board, in the event that I run late?Thank you! * Amendment: Location and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas, bicycle racks or bicycle storage areas, walkways and driveways, Plans shall include clearly identify pavement grade changes exceeding 5% and any vegetated slopes steeper than 1V:3H, identify all pedestrian and vehicular pavement materials. * pavement grade changes exceeding 5%reasoning: Per AAB,anything that exceeds 5%is a ramp. • "Any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20(5%)shall be considered a ramp and shall comply with the requirements of 521 CMR 24.00" • The least possible slope should be used for any ramp.-The maximum slope of a ramp shall be 1:12 (8.3%). (There is no tolerance allowed on slope, Refer to 521 CMR 2.4.4d) • An accessible route with a running slope steeper than 1:20(5%) is a ramp and shall comply with 521 CMR 24.00: RAMPS. Nowhere shall the cross slope of an accessible route exceed 1:50(2%).(Refer to 521 CMR 2.4.4d) o The cross slope of ramp surfaces shall be no greater than 1:50(2%) * Materials for pedestrian and vehicular pavement reasoning: Both 521 CMR and ADAAG require that the surface be:,, Firm,stable,and slip-resistant.,,Without slopes and cross slopes greater than the maximum allowed.The Massachusetts Architectural Access Board measures compliance of slopes in 24 inch increments using a digital level.This can be a difficult standard to meet at first construction and over the life of the pathway.,, Without level changes of greater than Y<". Rippled asphalt and tree roots protruding through pathway surfaces create dangerous conditions for people with disabilities * Vegetated slopes greater than 1v:3H anything more than 3HAV is considered a steep slope,steeper slopes may result in erosion • Side slopes should be 3:1 or flatter for maintenance and to prevent side slope erosion • The steeper the slope,the faster the water will move,thus being able to carry more soil • -The maximum slope gradient is generally limited to 1:2 (V:H),as the ability to dissipate water velocity from steeper slopes is difficult • -3H:1V=33.5%slope gradient, or an 18 degree angle o per EPA: "shorten long slopes by installing temporary diversions across the slope to reduce flow velocity and erosion potential. Install permanent diversions with slope drains and protected outlets on long steep slopes (over 20%)as the slopes are constructed." • "Consider both the stabilization measures and how they will be maintained before planning the steepness of the finish slope. For example, if the finished slope is to have grass cover that will be mowed, it should be constructed on a grade of 3:1 or flatter." • "Minimize the creation of steep slopes.Steep slopes have significant potential for erosion and increase sediment loading.Avoid using slopes greater than 2:1."- Mass Stormwater Handbook 1 • All embankment slopes adjacent to wetland replication areas should have slopes no greater than 2H: 1V unless stabilized by structural means. * review of traffic plans by traffic&parking commission: -to ensure plans have proper plans,T&P members have expertise in traffic and parking measures. Planning board members have expertise in site plans etc -other cities require this review(for example, Beverly)it can be done through inviting the members to the planning board meeting, or having them review prior to the planning board seeing the plans. * show vegetation within 25feet of property line: trees etc(their roots)can affect erosion etc vegetation also provides shade,screening etc other cities require Helpful links: -AAB: http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dpl/di)s/aab-reps/521020.pdf Amendment:surrounding conditions-another community https://www.cambridpema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/SpecialPermits/Forms/spec perm reauirements.pdVla=en httos://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH 11 a.pdf http://www.mayc.org/sites/default/files/LID Fact Sheet - Vegetated Swales.pdf n ham://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/waterlesfull.pdf http://www.bwsc.orp/ABOUT BWSC/systems/stormwater mgt/Stormwater%20BMP%20Guidance 2013.pdf n 2 Amanda Chiancola �rom: Eric Papetti <epapetti@Salem.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 13, 2017 8:49 AM To: Amanda Chiancola Subject: Comment confirmation Hi Amanda, I sent a comment to Councilor Gerard yesterday regarding the proposed zoning changes which were before the joint meeting last night, and she said she would be forwarding it to you and the city clerk so it could be included as official public comment. Would you mind confirming for me if this made it to your desk in time?I have pasted it below for reference: ------------- Dear Councilors and Planning Board Members: I wish to comment on the proposed zoning changes to the review criteria for site plans, which would, among other things, give additional responsibilities to the traffic and parking commission through making subsections 3 and 4 of the site plan review criteria subject to review by the commission. In general, I believe that linking planning board and traffic and parking commission processes is a sound practice, in line with the best practices of peer cities, and I would welcome the opportunity for the two groups to engage more closely. —"My understanding of the proposed changes under subsections 3 and 4 is that they only add responsibilities for reviewing ,nternal site circulation, consistent with our complete streets policy, and with access points and routes to and from the sites.This review would be similar to the advisory function which the Traffic and Parking Commission already provides for street designs. Given that the Traffic and Parking Commission's regulatory responsibilities are still under consideration by the City Council, I am supportive of the proposed changes here even if the final recommendation is only to give the Commission an "advisory" function. I ask that as the planning commission and city council consider these proposed changes, they would consider how the review process would play out such that it is doable given the time constraints which exist for all parties, and that this additional review does not add time to the overall review process for applicants. Both of those things should be easily achievable, and examples from nearby cities with similar processes (such as Beverly) may be helpful in working that out. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Eric Papetti 11 Symond St., Unit 1 Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to and from municipal officials are public records. FMI please refer to: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm. Please consider the environment before printing this email. 1 s City of Salem, Massachusetts Traffic and Parking Department 120 Washington Street,3'a Floor Salem,MA 01970 www.sakem.com Kimberley L. Driscoll,Mayor Matthew Smith,Traffic and Parking Director June 12,2017 Salem City Council&Salem Planning Board 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.5.6 Amendment Dear Councillors and Planning Board Members, Due to a previous commitment,I am unable to attend tonight's joint public hearing;however,I wanted to provide my thoughts on the proposed replacement of Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria, specifically related to subsections 3,4 and 14. Please be aware that these are my thoughts as I have not had the opportunity to discuss with the Traffic and Parking Commission,which I staff for the City. As the City's Director of Traffic and Parking,I fundamentally believe that Complete Streets practices should be implemented wherever possible,and it is my and the Traffic and Parking Commission's responsibility to implement our Complete Streets policy.Thus,I wholly support the inclusion of any requirement that ensures all modes of transportation are incorporated within a project's design. However,a formal approval from the Traffic and Parking Commission is not necessary for the purposes of site Plan approval.Review by City staff(including myself],and providing an opportunity for the Traffic and Parking Commission to review a site plan and provide comments and recommendations within set timeframe,would achieve the desired result to ensure Complete Streets policies are addressed and implemented. Further,based on the City Council Ordinance establishing the Traffic and Parking Commission,it is my understanding that the Commission likely does not have the jurisdiction to do so. Thank you. Matt Smith Director of Traffic and Parking City of Salem Phone—978.619.5697 Fax 978.740-0404 June 12, 2017 CityttSalem Planning Board City lem City Council Members: I would like to commend the City on expanding the Planning Board's site plan review authority to include all residential properties, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and Salem Redevelopment Authority Project Reviews. I have just recently become aware of a joint public hearing tonight with the City Council and the Planning Board to consider rezoning parcels on Derby Street to B-5 zoning. The buildings on this location are handsome historic commercial buildings none taller than 3 stories. They provide a visual transition to the Historic Derby Street Neighborhood which includes the National Park Service site and the House of Seven Gables and many other historic properties. B-5 is a very permissive zoning, which will allow extremely tall buildings (70 feet and up to 6 stories) and much higher density up to 100% lot coverage. Unlike most of the rest of the B-5 district, these parcels are not in the Salem Redevelopment Authority area, so any new development will not be subject to design review. It seems that a very likely consequence of this rezoning will be to incentivize the demolition of these buildings and replace them with larger, more dense development. Further,there appears to have been no prior public process for abutters and other interested parties to have learned about this rezoning. In fact, it appears that abutters were not even notified of this potential change and the hearing this evening. This lack of public participation will be especially unfortunate if the Planning Board, as they did on the recent Bridge Street rezoning, close the public hearing on the same night it opens and refuse to take any additional comment, oral or written. For these reasons, I would ask both the Planning Board and the City Council not to approve this rezoning and to keep the public hearing open to receive more public input. Respe Ti enkins Amanda Chiancola From: Amanda Chiancola Sent: Monday,June 12,2017 4:01 PM To: Ilene Simons Subject: FW:joint public hearing tonight on proposed zoning changes From: Meg Twohey[mailto:vze255gg@verizon.net] Sent: Monday,June 12,2017 3:25 PM To:Amanda Chiancola<achiancola@Salem.com>; 'Arthur Sargent'<"sargeatlarge74"@aol.com>;Jerry L. Ryan <jryan@Salem.com>; Elaine Milo<emiloatlarge@gmail.com>; Robert McCarthy<rmccarthy@Salem.com>; Heather Famico<hfamico@Salem.com>;Stephen P. Lovely<Stephen@lovelylawgroup.com>; David Eppley <dweppley@comcast.net>;Josh Turiel<jturiel@Salem.com>; Beth Gerard<bgerard@Salem.com>;Steve Dibble <sdibble@Salem.com> Subject:joint public hearing tonight on proposed zoning changes To the members of the Planning Board and the City CounclI: I cannot attend that public hearing tonight but wanted to provide my comments. I urge the Council and the Planning Board to leave the meeting open so that you will be able to accept public comments following tonight's meeting. • The public has not had enough opportunity to understand the proposed changes. There should have been a public information meeting to present and explain the reason for these proposed changes before tonight. This instance sets an unacceptable precedent for the future. • Both the PUD section and the Site Plan Review section seem fine. In fact extending Site Plan Review to all residential units is desirable because it provides greater Planning Board oversight. • Regarding the change on Derby St to B-5,I leave it to residents of the downtown neighborhood whether they want the kind of density Inherent in the change of the parcels to B•5. • However,I strongly oppose the change on Derby Street to B-5 without including these properties in the SRA where they will be subject to Design Review. This truly sets another unacceptable precedent. Thank you for your consideration. Meg Twohey Margaret KS.Twohey SalemGrP@ava:ya]e.edu 978.744.6702 122 Federal Street Saleoy MA 01970 1 Amanda Chiancola "Irom: Barbara Cleary <dearyadvisors@comcast.net> Sent: Monday,June 12,2017 3:41 PM To: Amanda Chiancola;Tom Daniel Subject Derby Street Rezoning i Hi Amanda and Tom I would appreciate it if you could make sure that this is entered into the record of the public hearing this evening. Thank you. Barbara June 12,2017 To: City of Salem Planning Board From: Barbara A.Cleary 104 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 I have just recently become aware of a joint public hearing tonight with the City Council and the Planning Board to consider rezoning parcels on Derby Street to B-5 zoning. The buildings on this location are handsome historic commercial buildings which provide a visual transition to the Historic 3erby Street Neighborhood which includes the National Park Service site and the House of Seven Gables and many other historic properties. B-5 is a very permissive zoning which will allow extremely tall buildings and density. Unlike most of the rest of the B-5 district,these parcels are not in the Salem Redevelopment Authority area,so any new development will not be subject to design review. It seems that a very likely consequence of this rezoning will be to incentivize the demolition of these buildings and replace them with larger,more dense development. Further,there appears to have been no prior public process for abutters and other interested parties to have learned about this rezoning. In fact,it appears that abutters were not even notified of this potential change and the hearing this evening. This lack of public participation will be especially unfortunate if the Planning Board,as they did on the recent Bridge Street rezoning,close the public hearing on the same night it opens and refuse to take any additional comment,oral or written. For these reasons,I would ask both the Planning Board and the City Council not to approve this rezoning. 1 City of Salem In the year Two thousand and Seventeen An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Zoning Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows: Sectiac7. Section 9.5.3 —Application and Section 9.5.6 — Review Criteria of Salem Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended as follows: Section 9.5.3 Application is amended by deleting subsections 1-10 in their entirety and replacing with the following: 1. Location and dimensions of all buildings and other construction; 2. Location and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas, bicycle racks or bicycle storage areas, walkways and driveways; Plans shall clearly identify pavement grade changes exceeding 5%, and any vegetated slopes steeper than 1 V:3H, identify all pedestrian and vehicular pavement materials; 3. Location and dimensions of internal roadways and access ways to adjacent public roadways; 4. Location, function, photometric intensity, color temperature, and fixture type of external lighting; 5. Location, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening including retaining walls and fences: 6. Current and proposed locations, dimensions, and screening of utilities including: water, storm water, sewer, drainage, drain inlets, drainage tanks, back flow preventers, manholes, hydrants, gas, electrical, telephone, wireless communication facilities, HVAC-related mechanicals, transformers, switchgears, generators, intake and exhaust features including: ventilation, stacks, fans, louvers, steam, and recycling and other waste disposal locations; 7. Location and dimensions of snow storage areas; 8. Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams wetlands, street trees, and existing vegetation up to the curb line; 9. Topography of the site, with one foot contours; 10. Conceptual drawing of buildings to be erected, including elevations, showing architectural styles." I Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria is amended by: Deleting sub-section 3 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "3. Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit;" Deleting sub-section 8 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "8. Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage, refuse, recycling and other waste;" Section 2.This ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. In City Council April 13, 2017 Referred to the Planning Board to schedule a joint public hearing with the City Council. Joint public hearing held on June 12, 2017 and advertised in the Salem News on May 29, 2017 and June 5, 2017 Referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation In City Council June 22, 2017 Adopted as amended for first passage by unanimous roll call vote of 11 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail was denied In City Council July 20, 2017 Adopted for second and final passage by roll call vote of 11 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent Approved by the Mayor on July 24, 2017 ATTEST: CHERYL LAPOINTE CITY CLERK City of Salem In the year Two thousand and Seventeen An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Zoning Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows: Section 1. Section 9.5.3 —Application and Section 9.5.6 — Review Criteria of Salem Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended as follows: Section 9.5.3 Application is amended by deleting subsections 1-10 in their entirety and replacing with the following: 1. Location and dimensions of all buildings and other construction; 2. Location and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas, bicycle racks or bicycle storage areas, walkways and driveways; Plans shall clearly identify pavement grade changes exceeding 5%, and any vegetated slopes steeper than 1 V:3H, identify all pedestrian and vehicular pavement materials; 3. Location and dimensions of internal roadways and access ways to adjacent public roadways; 4. Location, function, photometric intensity, color temperature, and fixture type of external lighting; 5. Location, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening including retaining walls and fences: 6. Current and proposed locations, dimensions, and screening of utilities including: water, storm water, sewer, drainage, drain inlets, drainage tanks, back flow preventers, manholes, hydrants, gas, electrical, telephone, wireless communication facilities, HVAC-related mechanicals, transformers, switchgears, generators, intake and exhaust features including: ventilation, stacks, fans, louvers, steam, and recycling and other waste disposal locations; 7. Location and dimensions of snow storage areas; 8. Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams wetlands, street trees, and existing vegetation up to the curb line; 9. Topography of the site, with one foot contours; 10. Conceptual drawing of buildings to be erected, including elevations, showing architectural styles." Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria is amended by: Deleting sub-section 3 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "3. Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit;" Deleting sub-section 8 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "8. Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage, refuse, recycling and other waste;" Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. In City Council April 13, 2017 Referred to the Planning Board to schedule a joint public hearing with the City Council. Joint public hearing held on June 12, 2017 and advertised in the Salem News on May 29, 2017 and June 5, 2017 Referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation In City Council June 22, 2017 Adopted as amended for first passage by unanimous roll call vote of 11 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail was denied In City Council July 20, 2017 Adopted for second and final passage by roll call vote of 11 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent Approved by the Mayor on July 24, 2017 ATTEST: CHERY A. LAPOINTE CITY CLERK 17 ,oi'sal City_ @m,, � 4 ur e 5T Yeay and Nay, - 041M ayVpon the Question of "'° e 6w 9t,53 crer, Yea Nay` Pres.+ Absent'' Josh H Tudel 3: Arthur C.S ent;III `� 'ar•�` Robert K.McCarth � � � , Stephen P.Lovel Beth Gerard r Tbomas H Furey1� a Heather E.Famicoe l� David W.Eppley (/ Stephen Dibble Elaine F.MiloI President Totals Jf CiY $� CLERK t < .yam 9C Y RF W SVS ➢ .Y City of Yea andNay thVote of City Councff 3* ,'" _ p 'Upon e Question of Q .4M' c l�l�arn �^oD,&�y 1 �(cYCY18C1Ro (1jriPAI!{ �(2Q�� VI- ' � v' �m t lq 3 ,F d /� V ♦ �� ¢r� cJQG 9''Sln1]Ps.) `:1 i 1 V e kr^ zF Yea ` Nay Pies Absent .: # Date^ 2017 F g { JOsh'H Turiel: � ArthurC'Sa_r•'en IH �'- ';.�� - Robert K.McCarth rSte hen P.hovel Bet1►Gerard: -: � 4 Thomas H.Ftuej * T Heather E.FsEWcoo David W.Ep pley ; Ste•hen Dibble Elaine F.Milo. President ��\\ Totals ` V A TRUE COPY. A EST GiC4�� n TTY CLERK . .., N.• . h, ; 5, City of Salem. , 7-1 ;* " Yea and Nay Vote of City Couaed } c l0l�dTl'G� ^ Pli�$RQ� a z. rn.aea$AO 2inIPJA)Y1e 2.rtzlno4p kpa . i p 4 x 9 r Yea Nay- Pres. Absent Date 2017 , Josh H.Turiel; Arthar C,Sax en .-'III Jer - L R as Robert IC.McCarth Ste .hen P.Loyebig ^ Beth Gerard s Thomas H.Fare l/ Heather E.Famico David W.Eppley Stephen Dibble Elaine F.Milo I President " Totals l A TRUE COPY TESD a"z rry CLERK rmf A,.qW �^i'a".•`+ � .t ;:v w�++�p.!:..+^rt w m� '+aa?�"�.'�"4tii.r�;^k:i4.-.'y City.of Salem: R Yea and Nay Voted City CO S 4r Upon the Qaestitn"of , rcf { P� sz C4o�11<�� ; Yea Nay Pres. .Absent'' Date 2017 Josh H,Turiel ✓ ArtYhur.0 $_ en III Robert K.McCarth ✓ Stephen P.Lovel ✓ Beth Gerard, Thomas H.Fare. Heather E. l:amieo (� David W.E le (� Stephen Dibble Elaine F.Milo �✓ President TEST Totals ' CLERK